The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Delhi High Court order that had directed the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, to remove allegedly defamatory content about Asian News International (ANI) from its page, Bar and Bench reported.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia), challenging a single-judge Delhi High Court order dated April 2, which had directed the removal of allegedly defamatory statements.
Represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal, Wikipedia also challenged the Division Bench’s April 8 decision, which had upheld the single judge’s order.
The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, granted liberty to ANI to move the single judge of the Delhi High Court again for interim relief in its suit, which had alleged that Wikipedia was allowing anonymous users to make defamatory statements about it on its platform.
“Such a broad interim relief is not capable of being specifically implemented. The reason is that there is no clarity on the issue of who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading, and defamatory,” said the court.
Pointing out the lack of clarity in the single judge’s takedown order, the court questioned, “Who will determine what is false and what is defamatory?”
The counsel appearing for ANI argued that the statements identified in the amended plaint could be taken into account.
However, the Court held that the interim relief granted by the single judge was framed too broadly.
“On first principles, an injunction should be granted in such a manner that it is capable of being implemented. Please see directions of the learned single judge. Prayer B and C. Prayer B — ‘remove all false…’ Who will decide what is false?”
The Court then opined that ANI should move a fresh application before the single judge with a prayer against specific content.
“The problem is you don’t pray for proper relief before the single judge. Let both the orders go. Pray for fresh interim relief. Confine yourself to specific portions that they have put on their website,” the court told Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI.
In light of the Court’s observations, ANI’s counsel stated they would not oppose setting aside the High Court’s orders, while seeking liberty to file a fresh application before the single judge.
The Court accordingly passed the following order: “We set aside the impugned orders and grant liberty to file a fresh application before the learned single judge seeking appropriate interim relief concerning specific content hosted on the respondent’s site. If such an application is filed, it shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by this Court’s present order.”
The takedown order for the entire page stemmed from ANI’s lawsuit, which alleged that the Wikimedia Foundation permitted Wikipedia users to describe the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current BJP government.
On July 9, 2024, the High Court issued a summons to Wikipedia and directed it to reveal the identities of three users who had edited ANI’s Wikipedia page.
However, Wikipedia opposed the order, opting instead to notify the users privately rather than publicly disclose their identities.
The legal dispute began in July, with ANI filing a defamation case against Wikipedia for its allegedly defamatory description of the news agency on Wikipedia.
Among the sections that aggrieve ANI are those which say that ANI “has been criticised for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events”; that it has been accused of pursuing an “aggressive model” focusing on maximum revenue output while “easily dispensing journalists”; and that ANI “falsely blamed Muslims for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women.”
ANI accused Wikipedia of having “malicious intent” to tarnish ANI’s reputation, and of actively participating, through its officials, in removing the edits to reverse the allegedly defamatory content.
 from its page, Bar and Bench reported.){kind=link}